ras_site_get_printingRetrieve printing configuration for Parallels RAS sites, including printer redirection, universal printing, and driver policies. Use to troubleshoot print redirection issues.
Printing configuration — printer redirection, universal printing options, driver policies. Use this to troubleshoot print redirection issues or review printing policy configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content taxonomy of what the configuration contains, but says nothing about return shape, environment prerequisites, or whether settings are site-scoped versus farm-scoped beyond the tool name prefix.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero padding. The content scope is front-loaded before the usage sentence, and each clause ('printer redirection, universal printing options, driver policies') adds distinct information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument, idempotent read with no output schema, the description gives enough to select and call it correctly. It could be stronger by sketching the returned configuration structure, since no output schema exists to carry that burden, but the gap is minor for a simple settings read.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no argument semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents or over-promises an input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names the specific resource ('Printing configuration') and enumerates the subdomains it covers: printer redirection, universal printing options, driver policies. The 'get' verb is only implied by the tool name, but the scope is unambiguous against the sibling ras_site_get_* tools, each of which targets a distinct site setting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases — 'troubleshoot print redirection issues' and 'review printing policy configuration'. No exclusion or alternative sibling is named, but the tool is a single-purpose read of one settings domain, so there is little ambiguity to resolve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.